You might start with the explicit creationism: refusing to accept that mice and rats (and what of gerbils?) are related, much less humans and chimps; rejecting similarity (and ignoring the very notion of nested similarity) as evidence of descent; claiming common design as an equal, perhaps superior, explanation. I note that he also confuses acceptance of common descent with rejection of ID, even though he claims in that very article that ID is compatible with common descent. Very confused.